"Re-title"

[steveyeager]

Right i just heard this toNot sure what this means

[billg]

a couple of days ago I received an email from a publisher who has signed some of my songs (not the company mentioned above) who said that they will be moving away from re-titling and only signing exclusively. They said that I should start considering this to be the way things were heading because publishers are beginning to have problems signing non-exclusive stuff . . . Mainly because there are SOOOOO many non-exclusive startups but also because the legality of "re-titling" was being challenged (or about to be).I guess something is going on.

[hummingbird]

yep. I have to say our friend Matto said back two or three months ago that he thought things would go this way.

[billg]

Well, it will certainly make things simpler i guess.

[rolanoid]

I'm happy to hear there is a shift away from re-titling as often times the title that the library uses is not as good or relevant as the original title and this could at times make it less likely to be auditioned. I can only imagine that it is not an easy or desirable job for someone at the library to have to come up with track titles all day long and that it probably has to be done in a matter of haste too - doesn't everything in media?

[ceedub]

Actually, I've learned a lot about titling from having libraries re-title my tunes. I think the new title is usually better: narrower, more specific, immediately evoking a particular mood or image. I usually know by the title what kind of scene the library thinks my track is best suited for.If someone is spending all day coming up with titles, he's probably better at it than I am!This is not an argument for or against re-titling and non-exclusive deals. Just an observation.Cheers.